This was a very important win confirming that even the most publicity-driven celebrities now have the right to keep some parts of their lives private. But the ruling failed to create a new law of privacy, and confirmed that celebrities must rely on the existing law of confidentiality, enhanced by the Human Rights Act.
Then on 14 Oct 2002 three appeal court judges have upheld the Daily Mirror's challenge to a High Court ruling in favour of supermodel Naomi Campbell's breach of confidentiality claim. The court quashed the finding of breach of confidence and withdrew the £3,500 damages awarded to Campbell. The newspaper's editor Piers Morgan said: “I hope this historic victory sends a message to the more egotistical, pampered, self-deluded celebrities out there that if you relentlessly court the media and make money out of us, then you have to accept the occasional journalistic rough with the smooth.”
He also added: "Today's judgement is not a licence for us to trample on the privacy of the man or woman in the street. This is a licence for us to reveal perfectly justifiable information about public figures if they deliberately lie about themselves to protect their commercial images. There has been a lot of self-interested squealing recently about the ineffectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission. But this story was published within the strict guidelines of the PCC, and shows unequivocally that self-regulation of the press works.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.html)
Vanessa Feltz has made a plea to the press to give celebrities the same "basic human rights" as those not in the public eye. Feltz, who herself has been news fodder, and recently considered suing the Mirror under the Human Rights Act following its reports of an alleged affair, says Naomi Campbell deserved a “modicum of privacy” from the press even if she has used the media to further her career. She said that "We may be fascinated to find out that she is a drug addict in recovery," continues Feltz. "We may be titillated, entertained and moved to chat about it. There is, however, a vast difference between what the public is interested in, and what is in the public interest." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/factsheets/lawinaction.html)
Since then, the PCC have warned editors that celebrities and their families still have a right to privacy even if their personal relationships and affairs have been pored over by the press previously.
Another criticism, which has gained momentum in recent years, is the increasing pursuit of celebrity news. The Sunday Times serialised a book about Princess Diana which the PCC objected to. Later it was revealed that the story was true and it was deemed of public interest. After this the PCC changed their code of conduct.
The death of Princess Diana in 1997 is one event which echoed throughout the world and caused yet more changes to legislation. Revelations that Diana's car was chased at high speed by motorcycle paparazzi before it crashed early on Sunday in Paris dramatically effected the whole world – including the media. This incident coincided with a policy to make Human Rights part of British law, but with a clause to include the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 about free expression and the exercise of those freedoms.
The princess, Dodi Fayed and their driver, Henri Paul, were all killed but France's highest court ended a long court fight when it ruled photographers were not guilty of manslaughter. An investigation into the crash found that Mr Paul had been drinking before driving the couple, and had been driving too fast. Nether-the-less, the media’s endless pursuit for ‘celebrity news’ caused him to drive too fast and cost three innocent lives. If they were not being pursued by the paparazzi, they may still be alive today, even given the status of the driver.
The Catherine Zeta-Jones, Michael Douglas lawsuit against Hello! could also be an extremely important case in the history of privacy laws. The Hollywood couple are suing Hello! magazine for publishing sneak pictures of the November 2000 wedding after they had signed an exclusive £1m deal to sell the official pictures to rival magazine, OK!. They will say their professional careers had been damaged because the photographs were of poor quality and that just because they sold rights to allow some pictures of their wedding to be printed, that doesn’t mean that anybody could publish any picture they wanted, as they already had a contract with OK!.
Law dictates that a wedding is a public event as part of the ceremony involves allowing any member of the public to bring up reasons why the marriage should not go ahead. The reception is a private function, but this is not what they were complaining about. A wedding is a "public occasion" and it would have been stupid to think a photographer could not sneak in to such an event.
Hello! magazine argued that the wedding and reception "were not genuinely private" because they had already agreed to sell the photos to OK! magazine and that the couple wanted to "control publicity", not the right to privacy. At the end of the day if you want privacy, you shouldn't hold your wedding in a New York hotel.
So, even in a public place we feel we have some privacy. But how much privacy do we actually have? CCTV can be found in almost every high-street in the country and although many people consider these to be vital to crime prevention, others consider them to be an invasion into our privacy and the first steps to developing a ‘big brother’ type future.
In 1995, local man Geoff Peck cut his wrists in a suicide attempt in the town centre of Brentwood, Essex. This was filmed by the council's CCTV system and the police were called. Although Peck thanked CCTV for saving his life, he is taking Brentwood Council to the European Court of Human Rights (his case was recently declared admissible). Without his knowledge, the council released CCTV footage of his actions to the media, and suddenly, everybody knew about and could see his suicide attempt.
We all know about CCTV's in every major high street, but we take them for granted and certainly don't expect to become prime-time TV stars as a result of them. Mr Peck’s appearance on Anglia Television and the BBC's Crime Beat must have been quite a shock for him and definitely effected his reputation. But does he really have a case to protest. Peck's case is a battle of an ordinary man's right to indulge in a private act in a public place, versus the right of the council to use CCTV footage for public consumption. As Philip Leach put it: “It is welcome that the extent of personal privacy is being tested here not by a celebrity but by ‘the man in the street’.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print.html)
But if Peck wins his case that filming in public places constitutes an infringement of privacy then this will have dramatic repercussions for ordinary individuals as well as local councils. The government will have to ban not only councils from using CCTV cameras, but other ordinary people with cameras too.
Protecting our safety and civil rights is what CCTV is all about. But what about protecting the safety of ex-con and criminals. The James Bulger murder is a prime example of this. A lifetime ban was put in place to protect their new identities and whereabouts of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables from being published by the British media.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the high court's family division, who granted the injunction, said the reason protection was necessary was “not to protect the pair's private lives but for their personal safety”. If any newspaper was allowed to print current pictures of Venables and Thompson or reveal their new identities, no PCC adjudication, however strong, could make up for it as the boys would be at the mercy of the mob when people take the law into their own hands.
However, this injunction does not apply to foreign media groups from publishing the information, with the Internet being the most uncontrollable source. Internet Service provider ‘Demon’ feared that under the injunction, aimed at the press and broadcasters, it could have faced fines for contempt of court for unknowingly providing access to the material via a search engine.
Demon wanted the judge to specify the steps that would be reasonable for ISP’s to take to stop offending material reaching web pages. But Dame Elizabeth said changing technology would make it impossible to cover all eventualities and it was better to leave the injunction in more general terms. The Internet has changed the rules of compliance and means that the only people who will be truly bound by the injunction are the mainstream UK media.
If anyone were to find out the new identities of Venables and Thompson then the two boys would be at extreme risk of being sold out to the foreign press and then hunted by the British public. The Internet spreads urban myths very effectively, and many of the sites appear to have been set up by people with only a scant familiarity with the facts of the case. Many sites offer brutal details of torture meted out to James before his death. Others call for an unspecified form of "justice".
A great US site that debunks urban myths called truthorfiction.com, which came across some spurious details of James’s death, has covered the story truthfully and dismissed some of the lies about the incident. The information that may do the online rounds about the murder and the boys new identities may not be accurate, and because of the injunction it will be impossible to check against reality which may mean that innocent people may be endangered as a result.
In America, the Sixth Amendment provides protection from the media during criminal cases so that individuals don't get an unfair trial due to media publicity and public opinion that is generated from media coverage. However, they still allow TV cameras into some court trials, especially when they involve a celebrity.
Forty-eight states allow camera coverage of court proceedings-with the judge's permission and subject to restrictions.
Some people think that television cameras can disrupt court proceedings and infringe on the Sixth Amendment fight to a fair trial, where as others welcome it. The massive television coverage surrounding the 0.J. Simpson doubled-murder criminal trial in 1995 highlighted the benefits and drawbacks of having cameras in the courtroom. Some people say that the public has a right to know to know how the legal process works and how trials are conducted. Some experts think that the public can learn a great deal about the judicial process by watching court cases on television. In addition, they say that televising large portions of controversial trials can help viewers make up their own minds about a case instead of relying on journalists to interpret the proceedings and verdicts.
On the other hand, critics argue that the presence of television cameras in the court violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. Although the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a "public trial," they say that cameras are intrusive and that the media can create a chaotic atmosphere in the courtroom. Also, in the more emotive or criminal trials – murder for example - televising courtroom proceedings can violate the privacy of witnesses, making them vulnerable to harassment and unwanted media attention.
Bibliography.
Books.
- Denis McQuail (1994) Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction - Third Edition. SAGE Publications LTD.
-
James McDonnell (1991) Public Service Broadcasting - Routledge
- James Curran & Michael Gurevitch (2000) Mass Media and Society - Arnold Publishers
- Gill Branston & Roy Stafford (1996) The Media Student's Book – Routledge
Web Sites.
http://www.pcc.org.uk
http://www.culture.gov.uk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/factsheets/lawinaction.html
http://www.bc.edu/~yeomanse/tvguide.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.html
http://www.consumer.gov/ncpw2000/files/promote.pdf
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005484.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2000/fyi.html
http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Hundt/spreh648.txt
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art10
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4498823,00.html
http://www.media-ent-law.co.uk/privacy/chapter5.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,420835,00.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/jamiebulger.htm